A group of prominent Stanford University academics are urging the school to reject money from the tobacco industry, triggering a prickly debate about the best way to safeguard the integrity of a university’s research, reputation and academic freedoms.

A resolution, to be voted on May 17, divides the university’s top intellects, with leaders such as President John Hennessy and School of Medicine Dean Philip Pizzo taking opposing stances.

While other prestigious schools of medicine and public health, including Harvard and Johns Hopkins, already ban such funding, passage of the Stanford resolution would mark the first time a private university embraces the policy for its entire institution.

A similar ban, proposed by former Lt. Gov. – and former regent – Cruz Bustamante, is under consideration by the University of California’s Board of Regents, with a possible vote also scheduled for May 17. The prohibition, while supported by UC-San Francisco’s School of Medicine, is opposed by President Robert C. Dynes and leaders at other campuses, including UC-Santa Cruz.

At both universities, no one disputes that cigarettes kill or that the tobacco industry has a sordid record. Stanford and UC divested their investments in the industry long ago.

But since 2000, the tobacco industry has paid millions to American universities in the form of research grants, consulting fees and postdoctoral fellowships to study cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory diseases. Its research grant to Stanford is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. UC-Berkeley gets $1.17 million in funding. Systemwide, UC gets $15.9 million for 19 grants.

But can bad money be put to good use?

Or does it soil universities’ reputations, by making them complicit in a deadly business? Pros and cons

Supporters of a ban against tobacco money say schools should take the moral high ground and reject partnerships with an industry making products that annually kill 5 million people around the world.

Opponents say such a ban would erode academic freedom and open the door to future funding prohibitions that paralyze or politicize research.

What’s next, they ask: Sever ties to Gallo Winery, which underwrites viticulture research at UC-Davis? Or Exxon Mobil, which pays Stanford $100 million to fund climate and energy research? Or oil giant BP, which has chosen UC-Berkeley to lead a $500 million project to develop new sources of energy?

At a recent debate before Stanford’s Academic Senate, respected law professor Hank Greely argued that the tobacco industry “has perverted academic research for its own ends in ways that have had horrific consequences.”

“It hurts me that my university gives them cover and sustenance,” said Greely, a co-author of the resolution. “They are using us to whitewash themselves.”

Longtime tobacco historian Robert Proctor, another supporter of the ban, said “We really don’t want to be collaborating with an industry that is producing the world’s largest preventable cause of death.”

But on the other side, Hennessy resists the ban, saying he worries that it might infringe upon academic freedom.

“It is a political message,” Hennessy told the Academic Senate. “And I am very concerned that we are changing academic policy, a core academic policy, to send a political message.”

Also concerned about such a ban was Provost John Etchemendy, who notes that rigorous safeguards are already in place to prevent funders from distorting Stanford-based research. He also worries about what he calls “the slippery slope.”

“I receive frequently e-mails from faculty colleagues requesting, in effect, that Stanford faculty not be allowed to do such and such research, accept funding from such and such an organization, publish such and such views using the Stanford name as their affiliation,” he said.

Tobacco’s taint

For decades, university-based research funding was a strategic element of the tobacco industry’s effort to whitewash its tarnished public image.

Its disingenuous research was a focal point of a landmark trial last summer. On Aug. 17, 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the tobacco industry had engaged in a 40-year conspiracy to defraud smokers about the health risks of tobacco. As evidence, she cited industry-sponsored work by UCLA epidemiologist James Enstrom, who challenged the view that second-hand smoke poses a serious health risk.

The ruling forced the dissolution of the industry’s research foundations, such as the Council for Tobacco Research and the Center For Indoor Air Research.

However, a new foundation – the Philip Morris External Research Program – emerged, but with the same address, phone number and director, anti-tobacco activists say.

“Over the past decade, Philip Morris has dedicated significant resources toward scientific research, new product development and commercialization which might help address the harm caused by smoking,” according to the company’s Web site.

Currently, Stanford’s only recipient of tobacco money is John P. Cooke, director of the medical school’s program in vascular medicine and biology and the vascular biology lab.

For several years, Cooke has received several hundred thousand dollars annually from the Philip Morris Foundation to study the mechanism behind nicotine’s enhancement of blood vessel growth, called angiogenesis. This abnormal vessel growth has been linked to the acceleration of tumors and other disorders, such as age-related macular degeneration.

“That insight has led to whole new therapeutic avenues for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases,” said Cooke. “Knowing that a pathway exists, you can block it.”

Cutting the ties

Because of the debate over funding, Cooke has agreed to end the grant in June. Tobacco money accounts for about 20 percent of his research budget, so he’ll trim staff and supplies until other funding comes through. “We will not be able to do things that we wanted to do,” he said.

As a cardiologist, “All my career, I’ve been telling people to stop smoking,” Cooke said. “But for me, the moral issue is that whatever accelerates our understanding of disease is good. And whatever impedes our ability to do research is bad.”

Supporters of a ban say that if research is strong, someone else will fund it. In fact, Harvard has used its repudiation as a selling point for other donors, they say.

They reject the “slippery slope” argument, saying that by designing a product that kills people, the tobacco industry is fundamentally different from other industries.

“One could say that other industries have engaged in disagreeable behavior,” said UC-SF cardiologist Stan Glantz. “But none have a history of corrupting of the entire scientific process.”

Adds Glantz: “They’re crooks. So, essentially, you have UC and Stanford acting as accessories to a fraud. A university is supposed to be about truth, not fraud.”

Finally, they contend that universities’ historic 1970 statement on “academic freedom” was designed to protect speech, allowing controversial views. “The word `money’ does not appear,” said Glantz. “We shouldn’t be doing our work on the tobacco industry’s nickel.”

Attempting to strike a balance, Dean Pizzo wrote the medical school to say that he respected the right of individual faculty to make personal choices. The issue is more one of professional ethics than academic freedom.

But he added: “In our history, universities have taken stands on important society issues, and the role of tobacco in our society is certainly one such example, and perhaps among the most egregious ones.”

Lisa M. Krieger is a science writer at The Mercury News, covering research, scientific policy and environmental news from Stanford University, the University of California, NASA-Ames, U.S. Geological Survey and other Bay Area-based research facilities. Lisa also contributes to the Videography team. She graduated from Duke University with a degree in biology. Outside of work, she enjoys photography, backpacking, swimming and bird-watching.

A transit village with apartments, retailers, restaurants and a hotel is rising in Milpitas next to The Great Mall, close to light rail and the under-construction BART station. It’s one of several Silicon Valley projects sprouting up near transit.